Precisely, it isn't the UK !

As the lines were all UNDAMAGED and some traffic was still running anyway, I would have thought there would be quite a few lessons to be learnt from studying the wreck in situ,(only two carriages were partially on the lines) other than understanding the primary cause which no one seems to dispute, but no doubt they had their reasons.

Yes the photos show only a very small part of the track damaged. According to the media the rescue services were chaotic with the local hospital refusing to accept victims and diverting them to private hospitals.

http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2013/07/...84_530107.html

The response seems to have been an absolute shambles according to that.

Quite possible that lives were lost due to the various delays and refusals to respond.

Every lost minute can be crucial in such a desperate situation.

Obviously it won't make anything that happened at Santiago any better, nor will it bring back lives, but good news for the Spanish constructors FCC who have won a $7.8 billion contract to build metro lines in Saudi.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...96R0C920130728

Driver charged with reckless homicde and bailed

I'm surprised they let him out.

First he might have been best locked up for his own safety, there's a lot of very angry ppl.out there.

Secondly, he could well be suicidal, judging by what he's said up to now.

It's a terrible thing that's happened and something that must be dreadful for him to have to live with for the rest of his lifetime, but that's not forgetting the unbearable, unforgettable trauma being suffered by all the families involved.

The only positive thing that could be said in his favour was that he came clean about it in the first instance at least, unlike that Captain Cowardly from the Costa Concordia.


That Metro disaster in Valencia a few years back was put down mainly to speeding, though in that case the driver didn't survive.
Maybe he's just as well out of it because there's still a lot of bad blood there as well.
No one was named as being directly responsible and those affected by it are still trying to get the enquiry reopened.

Apart from the Drivers responsibility there was a big question mark about the condition of the running gear on the train, many of the staff had asked for it to be replaced at least a year before the accident, but it was just repeatedly patched up and the issue was apparently swept under the carpet in the original enquiry.

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/...sf=Relevancy#8

Could anything like this have been the cause ?

I thought they had established that he was on the phone at the time he should have been starting to brake.

The person who called him was a Renfe supervisor who was actually on the train. He should not have made the call unless it was an emergency which it wasn't.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/08/02/...23_554470.html

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/08/01/...45_258368.html

I agree entirely. It reminds me of Cdr. Farrington of the Destroyer HMS Nottingham who took responsibility for her grounding even though he wasn't actually in command of her at the time.


If only others (bankers?) would take responsibility for their errors.

As I originally understood it there were 2 drivers on the train, yet I've never since heard mention of the second one or what he was up to when the accident occurred, unless of course he is the same guy as the supervisor to which you refer ?

According to one report the driver was reading a document regarding the lay-out of the train station at the same time as he was on the phone.

Up to now it appears that the person who made the call is not being held responsible in any way and he totally denies any responsibility himself.

Yes, there were two drivers but as I understand it they don't both have to be in the cab and the other driver presumably was having a break.

The Renfe man was concerned about a family and was asking the driver to park it in such a way as to make it easier for them to get off, hence the fact that the driver was looking at the station layouts.

It seems to me that if the call had not been made then there would have been no crash but it is going to be difficult to hold either of them directly responsible.

I believe there were three different issues mentioned in the clip I posted from S.A.

Reading, using telephone and worst of all nodding off to sleep.

We can put a tick against the first two, but maybe the third should be considered a possible contributory factor.
Whilst he acknowledged the slow down warning he didn't react to it and his acknowledgment could have been little more than an instinctive reaction if he'd been nodding off.

Bearing in mind that he still didn't realize where he was until the accident by which time he was trying to chat and read at the same time, maybe he just wasn't quite with it and it could possibly have been a combination of all three.

Almost all aircraft accidents turn out to be a combination of various faults and errors, also it's not unusual for pilots to nod off as well.
I read of one not so long ago who'd flown 100kms past his intended destination before being alerted.

RN commanding officers still have to sign for the ship when taking over command, they also have 100% total responsibility, even though as Cdr Farrington knows his navigation officer who had responsibility whilst he was ashore on official business actually ran the ship aground.

It is the after the event efforts he made to resolve the situation that counts on his side at the court martial - but every commanding officer knows it is an automatic court martial offence.
just depends on whether the hilt or the point of his sword points towards him when he is given their verdict.

`

Maybe be before everyone makes suppurations about the driver you should read about the latest news no the new security measures whole length of this line, being now looked at by ADIF.
It seems these should have been installed from day one of the use of this line.

To be fair, the driver openly admitted to his mistake just after it happened, but as I mentioned previously there's usually more than one factor involved in bad accidents such as that.

I believe Stevie mentioned earlier that there was a speed limiting device that should have been installed on that stretch of line but hadn't been fitted for whatever reason.